EpicSki › The Barking Bear Forums › Off-Season Sports & The Lighter Side › Cycling › Trek fuel ex ( 8 or 9) or else?
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Trek fuel ex ( 8 or 9) or else?

post #1 of 5
Thread Starter 

This summer will be my third season of mountain biking... I own a 2011 Giant Anthem 3 29er...


The bike is really smooth and stable but is lacking nimbleness for my taste.. In fact, I realized that when I tried a fuel ex ( a couple of minutes) that a friend had taken for the day...It could turn on a dime! I'm almost certain it was also a 29er...

The places around here are mostly technical trails with no flats and a lot of 180 narrow tight turns...So...


1.Should I go with the fuel ex? and if so, wich one would be the nicest one for me without going overboard and considering what I ride presently?


2. Go with 27.5? Stay at 29? Or even go for a 26" ( asking because there is a 2012 fuel ex 9 that is being sale near here and it seem in nice condition but it has 26" wheels...


3. any other suggestions?


Don't know if it is relevant here but used to give my specs in the skiing thread; so 6 feet and 210 pounds...

post #2 of 5

Personally I don't enjoy the 29er for tech stuff.  I enjoy my 26 for that more.  More agility, better balance especially in my small frame size (I'm 5'8").  I find the 29er wants to tip-in unpredictably and quickly..and you're over the front a bit more..higher centre of gravity.  It rolls well, fast bike.  But for tight tech stuff, I like the 26 better.  I'd suggest you demo or borrow a 27.5 and see if you like that better.  It's obviously between a 29 and 26 so you'll get something in between for handling.  I noticed the wheelbase on the Fuel is longer than your Anthem based on both being 29er's so I'm suspicious that the Fuel you rode was a 29er.  Longer wheelbase usually means less nimble, all other things being equal.  However, steering geometry can also change that.


For me, 29er is for fast fire-road and single track.  26 or 27.5 is for tech east-cost style bush and rocks.  That's my preference..your mileage may vary.  :)

post #3 of 5
I've ridden the anthem on two occasions, briefly. I wouldn't want anything nimbler than that for east coast singletrack in terms of geometry. (Too twitchy for my preferences.) Better to go with a 26, as Scott says.

Meanwhile, you're sure it's not too big?

Fwiw, I ride a RIP 9, size small. Been very happy with that for five or six years now. Maybe worth a look.

Edit: and I like it fine for tech stuff, although my tech may not be yours or Scott's.
post #4 of 5

Here's a clip..  For me, from about 5mins to 6:15 or so, that's the kinda stuff I prefer the 26 for.  Everything else I like the 29.  Even some of that stuff, the 29 rolls better over obstructions.  But I still feel more comfortable on the 26 for junk like that.  And keep in mind it's all subjective at times..you know, some geometry or positioning may simply make it more comfortable/predictable on one bike or another.


post #5 of 5
Thread Starter 

Thanks guys for the replies!

I stop at a shop to day and they have a 2014 superfly fs 9.7 sl for 2450$ us...a 1000$ cnd off from the original price... And it was at that shop that My friend rented the bike I tried and found so much more nimble than mine... Turns out it was a firefly! He putted some pedals on the bike and letted me ride it around the shop... So much more nimble! Wow! with great acceleration even for a 29er... He told me that the frames evolved with the 29 wheels ( I guess like the ski companire with rocker) and that the new 29er were much more nimble than the first generation...


I think I will buy it... I liked the SRAM X7 and the shimano slx brakes too... Very good for climbing or getting over obstacles... At first, I had to adjust to the nervousness of the direction but then....Playfull! And a Carbon frame!




Any objection for buying a Superfly fs 9.7 sl  over a Fuel ex 8 ?

New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: Cycling
EpicSki › The Barking Bear Forums › Off-Season Sports & The Lighter Side › Cycling › Trek fuel ex ( 8 or 9) or else?